Yes I think we should just forget about any other license than LGPL. Everything XWiki Dev Team produce should be LGPL whatever it is which is exactly what we do right now in practice from sources and Maven point of view. We just need to completely remove all reference to CC-BY (and completely get rid of this absurd runtime message in XE preferences).
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:57 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > This seems overly complex to me to say that portions of wiki pages that are > content is CC-BY and the portions that are scripts are under LGPL. Also I > don’t think it helps at all to people who want to make distributions (since > if they copy existing wiki pages it’s almost sure they’ll copy scripts and > thus LGPL code). > > IMO either we say that wiki pages + VMs are fully CC-BY or we say they are > LGPL and live with the consequences (i.e. modifications + redistribution have > to be under LGPL or compatible license). If you distribution your own content > then the license is the one you wish for your content and untouched existing > content is under LGPL. > > Thanks > -Vincent > > On 10 Nov 2015 at 12:17:36, Eduard Moraru ([email protected]) wrote: > > +1 for LGPL on code as well. 90+% of the standard XAR contains raw code, as > Marius and Thomas already mentioned. > > IMO, the CC license string in the header could be modified from "This wiki > is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 > <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/> license" to something like > "This wiki's content is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 > <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/> license"... i.e. to emphasize > that it is a statement for the runtime; for content pages that are created > by the users and that there are other pages that contain code and that are > part of the XWiki product itself (which has its own LGPL license). > > IMO, we can not simply say that wiki pages have license X, because a wiki > page is just a container (just like a file in a filesystem). What you > choose to put in that page (i.e. file) determines what type of license you > apply to it. > > On this note, do you think we would be interested in adding a new "license" > field to a wiki page's model? This would also allow us to set the license > of our standard XAR code pages in that field, since right now, any license > header we have in our XML pages on git gets lost at runtime, since XML > comments are not imported into the wiki in any way... so our licensing > information is lost at runtime. > > Conclusion: Code is LGPL, content is CC, regardless of where it is > physically located or packaged. > > Thanks, > Eduard > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Thomas Mortagne < >> [email protected] >> > wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:05 AM, [email protected] <[email protected] >> > >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > On 10 Nov 2015 at 10:03:10, Thomas Mortagne >> > > ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:59 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> > >> > Hi Caleb, >> > >> > >> > >> > See below >> > >> > >> > >> > On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:51:04, Caleb James DeLisle >> > >> > ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> On 10/11/15 09:40, [email protected] wrote: >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > On 10 Nov 2015 at 09:23:12, Thomas Mortagne >> > >> >> > ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) >> > wrote: >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> >> IMO we should get rid of this old "The wiki documents (all the >> > >> >> >> documents in the default .xar archive) are distributed under >> > >> >> >> Creative >> > >> >> >> Commons (CC-BY)” runtime message because: >> > >> >> >> * when you install XWiki you end up with that in the footer and >> > most >> > >> >> >> people don't touch (and probably don't really understand) it and >> > we >> > >> >> >> should not choose for them the default license of theire own >> pages >> > >> >> >> * we already license our page sources under LGPL and I don't see >> > the >> > >> >> >> point in having two licenses >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > Was added by Sergiu in: >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/License?viewer=changes&rev1=3.2&rev2=4.1 >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > It was following a discussion at >> > >> >> > http://markmail.org/message/wfewnlkcbaa64whq >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > I think using CC-BY for the content is a good idea since we want >> > our >> > >> >> > users to be able to change the wiki page content without having >> to >> > >> >> > redistribute their changes as LGPL. For example someone wanting >> to >> > make a >> > >> >> > flavor and modify some wiki pages. Unless we wish to force them >> to >> > >> >> > redistribute their flavor as LGPL… >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > My issue was more about the compatibility of the CC-BY with the >> > LGPL >> > >> >> > license. Actually if we think about it we distribute several >> kinds >> > of >> > >> >> > binaries: >> > >> >> >> > >> >> According to GNU, CC-BY is LGPL compatible: >> > >> >> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ccby >> > >> >> I would have guessed that it was not but the GPL contains some odd >> > >> >> clauses just for providing additional compatibility. >> > >> > >> > >> > ok that’s cool then. >> > >> > >> > >> > So we just need to confirm that we want our wiki pages (XML files) >> > under >> > >> > CC-BY and modify the licenses accordingly. >> > >> > >> > >> > Same question for VM files. >> > >> > >> > >> > Personally I’m fine with CC-BY for both. >> > >> > >> > >> > WDYT? >> > >> > >> > >> >> > * JAR file: No problem there, all code is under LGPL >> > >> >> > * XAR files: No problem there, all code is under CC-BY. Note that >> > >> >> > this means script code is also under CC-BY which doesn’t really >> > support >> > >> >> > source code but I don’t think we care. Actually there could be >> > some problem >> > >> >> > since in our XAR files we include pom.xml which link to JAR >> > dependencies >> > >> >> > under LGPL. The script calls LGPL code. Is that a problem? >> > >> >> >> > >> >> Not a problem, LGPL means linking is ok. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > * WAR file: We need to clarify what’s the license for our VM >> files. >> > >> >> > Do we want someone to be able to create a custom skin and >> > redistribute it >> > >> >> > under a license other than LGPL? Should the VM files be under >> > CC-BY too? >> > >> >> >> > >> >> If they cannot possibly be used outside of XWiki, do we really care >> > >> >> what the license is ? >> > >> > >> > >> > I agree we shouldn’t care and I’m in favor of CC-BY. Now do we need >> to >> > >> > find all their authors to ask them if they’re ok to relicense them >> un >> > CC-BY? >> > >> > :) >> > >> >> > >> I don't really agree with the "we don't care", pages contain code and >> > >> they are distributed on their own. It's not just some data you get in >> > >> a XWiki distribution but extensions you install on a platform so they >> > >> are software. It's like saying we don't care about some php software >> > >> license, it only works with the pho runtime anyway… >> > > >> > > Ok. What’s your proposal? Have them under LGPL? >> > > >> > > That would mean: >> > > >> > > * Users can modify the content as long as they don’t redistribute it >> > > * If users make modification to them and redistribute them, then they >> > need >> > > to use the LGPL license >> > > >> > > Would we be ok with that? >> > >> > >> >> > It certainly make sense to me, we have lots of code in pages and I >> > don't see why code from pages should not be as viral as code in Java >> > when you reuse it. You can write any extension or flavor that does not >> > reuse code coming from common pages and put whatever license you want >> > (which should be the case most of the time, having a Main.WebHome page >> > with completely new content does not mean you reuse Main.WebHome >> > code). >> > >> >> +1 for LGPL. Default wiki pages contain JavaScript, CSS, HTML, Velocity, >> Groovy code which shouldn't be licensed differently than the Java code we >> have in the JARs. Moreover, the license shouldn't depend on the way the >> code is packaged: JAR, WebJar, WAR or XAR. >> >> Thanks, >> Marius >> >> >> > >> > > >> > > Note that it would certainly be the simplest from the license POV to >> have >> > > everything in LGPL. >> > > >> > > Thanks >> > > -Vincent >> > > >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > * ZIP file (jetty/hsqld standalone distribution): Here there >> could >> > be >> > >> >> > a problem since we have a mix of LGPL and CC-BY content. Anyone >> > has a clue >> > >> >> > about whether this is ok or not? >> > >> >> >> > >> >> It's fine because LGPL (and even GPL) is ok with files under any >> > other >> > >> >> license to be distributed in the same package. This is actually a >> > >> >> requirement >> > >> >> for a license to be classified as "Open Source”. >> > >> > >> > >> > My understanding is that if you distribute something with GPL or >> LGPL >> > >> > license then it becomes GPL or LGPL (virality). >> > >> > >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > -Vincent >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> >> Thanks, >> > >> >> Caleb >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > WDYT? I’m far from a license expert... >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > Thanks >> > >> >> > -Vincent >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 11:23 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> On 9 Nov 2015 at 22:51:41, [email protected] >> > >> >> >>> ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) wrote: >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>>> Hi devs, >> > >> >> >>>> >> > >> >> >>>> I see at http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/License >> that >> > we >> > >> >> >>>> say: “The wiki documents (all the documents in the default >> .xar >> > archive) are >> > >> >> >>>> distributed under Creative Commons (CC-BY)”. >> > >> >> >>>> >> > >> >> >>>> However currently all our wiki pages in GitHub (the XML files) >> > are >> > >> >> >>>> licensed under LGPL 2.1 >> > >> >> >>>> >> > >> >> >>>> Do we need to change the license for all those XML files? >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> BTW are we sure it would be ok to have files licensed under >> both >> > >> >> >>> LGPL and CC-BY in our distribution? >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> All I could find is to consider those XML files “non-functional >> > >> >> >>> data” files (see "Non-functional Data” in >> > >> >> >>> >> > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html) >> > >> >> >>> which says: >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> “ >> > >> >> >>> Data that isn't functional, that doesn't do a practical job, is >> > >> >> >>> more of an adornment to the system's software than a part of >> it. >> > Thus, we >> > >> >> >>> don't insist on the free license criteria for non-functional >> > data. It can be >> > >> >> >>> included in a free system distribution as long as its license >> > gives you >> > >> >> >>> permission to copy and redistribute, both for commercial and >> > non-commercial >> > >> >> >>> purposes. For example, some game engines released under the GNU >> > GPL have >> > >> >> >>> accompanying game information—a fictional world map, game >> > graphics, and so >> > >> >> >>> on—released under such a verbatim-distribution license. This >> > kind of data >> > >> >> >>> can be part of a free system distribution, even though its >> > license does not >> > >> >> >>> qualify as free, because it is non-functional. >> > >> >> >>> ” >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> One issue is that those XML files not only contain data but >> also >> > >> >> >>> scripts which I don’t think can be considered “non-functional >> > data”... >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> WDYT? >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> Thanks >> > >> >> >>> -Vincent >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>>> Thanks >> > >> >> >>>> -Vincent >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Thomas Mortagne >> > _______________________________________________ >> > devs mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> devs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >> > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs -- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
